Joanna Rose & E (a child) v the Secretary of State for Health & the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority

The High Court ruled today that Article 8 - the right to family life, including personal identity - is 'engaged' and is a valid basis for the case of donor offspring to seek non-identifying information about their donor parents. Mr Justice Scott-Baker ruled that "an AID child is entitled to establish a picture of his identity as much as anyone else".

The ruling means that this case will now proceed to its second stage (some time early next year - see below). That hearing will consider whether the DOH and HFEA have breached Article 8; whether or not donor insemination-conceived adults and children have been discriminated against; and whether the DOH and HFEA should be doing more to protect and provide more non-identifying information to donor offspring.

Joanna Rose, one of the applicants in this case, said this morning:

"I am deeply relieved by this ruling. We now have a legal foothold on which to establish our rights and identities. This is an important and heartening event on a long road to recognition of us as people - just like everyone else, with social and genetic roots - rather than as products".

For obvious reasons, Joanna Rose will not be commenting further between now and the next stage of the case. The other client's identity is protected by law and the family will not be commenting.

Joanne Sawyer, the Liberty lawyer who has taken this case for both clients, said:

"This is a crucial first step towards allowing donor-conceived adults and children to have information about their genetic makeup and background.

"The law has to strike a balance between their rights and donors' right to privacy. This case is not about identifying donors without their consent".

BACKGROUND - THE CASE
This landmark case on the right of children conceived by donor insemination to key non-identifying information about their donor parent is a judicial review of the Department of Health's and the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority's decision not to secure significant information for donor children conceived after 1991 - or any information for those conceived before.

The case (the aims of which have been occasionally misrepresented...) seeks:
- to extend the HFE Act requirement for non-identifying donor information to be kept and to be available to donor offspring - so more information is kept than currently, and so information on pre-1991 donors is also protected and collected where it still exists
- the establishment of a voluntary contact register for donors and donor offspring

However, following a DOH application, the High Court has so far considered only whether Article 8 is engaged and two other points of legal argument.

The case is being argued using Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (right to respect for private and family life - incorporating the right to personal identity) and Article 14, the anti-discrimination provision. It seeks to defend the rights of individuals to information necessary for an understanding of their personal identity.